On March 27th, the Board met in Sacramento to consider CARB Staff recommendations for changes to the Mandate. During the open hearing, the Board directed the staff to lower the minimum number of pure ZEV’s that the six largest automotive manufacturers are required to deliver in the period from 2012 to 2015 (known as Phase III) by 70% – from 25,000 to a mere 7,500! This is an absurdly low number given the emerging developments in the EV space, not to mention the progress we’ve demonstrated at Tesla Motors specifically.

Following the March 27th hearing, the Board directed the Staff to draft new regulatory language based on the Board’s decisions and then to open that draft language to a 15 day public comment period which opened on July 25th.Tesla Motors strongly disagrees with the Board’s decision, and with the Staff’s interpretation of that decision with regard to the Phase III minimum. We also object to other key provisions in the revised mandate as proposed by the staff. On August 11th, 2008, Ze’ev sent the letter below to outline Tesla’s position directly to CARB Chairperson Mary Nichols.

I am once again appealing to you to reconsider the Board’s decision to reduce the minimum number of pure zero emissions vehicles by 70%, from 25,000 to a mere 7,500 during Phase III (2012 to 2015).

It is well documented that the Board was misguided into an erroneous conclusion by a faulty fact finding process which led the staff to conclude in their ISOR that no electric car will be commercially available until 2012. Whereas the reality is Tesla Motors is already delivering zero emission full performance electric vehicles to customers. What’s more, we are at an advanced stage of establishing full manufacturing operations in California for introduction in 2010, of the Model S, a five-passenger affordable zero emission electric car which will be produced in volumes of 20,000 cars per year.

Indeed Tesla is not alone. Major automobile makers including Nissan, Daimler BMW, and Mitsubishi have already announced plans for the introduction of zero emission electric vehicles to the California market in 2010. By any measure, CARB’s minimum quota of 25,000 pure zero emission vehicles for 2012-2015 can be met today. Whose interest will be served by easing the requirements to a paltry 7,500 vehicles?

Eliminate the substitution of Pure ZEVs with Enhanced AT-PZEVs

If the Board was bent on incentivizing the introduction of plug-in hybrids by providing manufacturers generous rights of substitutions to pure ZEVs, it behooves the Board to review its decision. The plain fact is since the public hearing in March, 2008, market forces have done in a very short time what the Board has been attempting to achieve over years. The quantum jump in the price of oil, coupled with heightened awareness of carbon emissions, has propelled consumers to seek cars that answer both problems and give manufacturers a startling wake up call. Toyota, GM and Ford have all announced high volume PHEV programs. In fact the enormity of the demand for hybrids since CARB’s last hearing only five months ago should serve as a lighting rod for you to reconsider whether in view of the new realities, it is necessary to award ZEV credit at all to any type of hybrid; whether its PZEV, AT- PZEV or Enhanced AT- PZEV. The paradigm has irrevocably shifted giving CARB an opportunity to redeem its reputation and reassert its leadership position in leading the charge toward early and wide adaptation of true zero emission vehicles.

The Board has repeatedly declared that it is determined to “maintain pressure on the commercialization of pure ZEV technologies,” however the Board’s actions do not comport with its own pronouncements.

Set the minimum ZEV delivery requirement on an annual basis

The minimum ZEV requirements have been set to 3 year phases. The practical effect of this rule has been to give the LVM’s in excess of a 2 year grace period during which they can defer meeting their phase requirements until the very end of the final year of any given phase. Consequently this extended grace (“blackout”) period encourages LVMs to delay the introduction of pure zero emission vehicles to the market. CARB should prorate the minimum ZEV delivery requirements for Phase III and beyond to a yearly basis. Such a rule would be consistent with the stated goals of CARB and deliver the public policy benefit of a maximum number of ZEV’s on the road at the earliest possible date.

Contrary to California’s interest in encouraging the establishment of manufacturing facilities for zero emission vehicles in the State as repeatedly articulated by Governor Schwarzenegger and enacted into law by the Legislature (AB118), CARB continues to favor large automakers and in the process needlessly undermines Tesla. The illogical consequence of the proposed modification may be inadvertent and unintended but needs to be remedied immediately. A case in point:

In a recent modification, the staff proposed, evidently in deference to intermediate vehicle manufacturers (IVM), an amendment allowing IVMs to accrue gold ZEV credits for use up to three years after a transition to a large vehicles manufacturer (LVM). Simply put, as long as a manufacturer has not become an LVM the clock doesn’t tick on the 3 years useful life of the ZEV credit. Yet if a manufacturer other than an LVM chooses to trade their gold credits, then the 3 years life span is deemed to have a starting point in the MY in which the credits were earned.

Ironically, staff goes out of its way to safeguard the welfare and commercial interests of the IVM including BMW, Mercedes, and VW. In stark contrast, the proposed modification will unfairly and severely discriminate against Tesla, the only car maker based in California and the world’s only car maker that actually develops and is committed exclusively to zero emission vehicles. How? Since Telsa makes only zero emission vehicles we sell our gold ZEV credits to LVMs. The monies received defray in part some of the large R &D costs incurred in pioneering the development of the zero emission electric cars. If the 3-year clock starts ticking in the MY during which we sell the car, and not the time in which we sell the ZEV credit to an LVM, (unless we are able to sell the ZEV credits immediately upon selling the car), we will be left with highly perishable ZEV credits that expire sooner than 3 years and consequently may be valued at a steep discount if not a zero value altogether. Please note we are not speculating about the huge reduction in value of the ZEV credit due to even the slightest reduction in its validity period, we have experienced it already.

We respectfully request that Tesla be accorded the same considerations given to much larger and more established IVMs and that the proposed rules be modified so that for any company that solely manufactures zero emission vehicles the 3 years period of the ZEV credit starts only upon transfer of the ZEV credit to another company.

In summary we urge the Board to:
1) Increase not decrease the minimum number of Pure ZEV required in Phase III (2012-2015);

2) Eliminate the substitution of Pure ZEVs with Enhanced AT-PZEVs;

3) Set the minimum ZEV requirements on a yearly basis rather than for three years, thus preventing manufacturers from getting an additional three year grace period and eliminating “blackout” years;

4) Change the carry forward provision of gold ZEV credits earned by any manufacturer that exclusively manufactures pure ZEVs to expire 3 years from the date of transfer to another manufacturer.

With these actions the Air Resources Board will once again be able to recapture its credibility and assume the mantle of leadership in advancing the goal of true zero emissions transportation in the state of California and beyond.

Sincerely,

Ze’ev Drori
President and CEO

cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senate President pro Tem Don Perata
Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass
Members of the Air Resources Board
The Honorable Susan Kennedy
The Honorable James Goldstein, Executive Officer, Air Resources Board

It takes just a couple of minutes to cut and paste a couple of points to your liking from Ze'ev message to CARB, add a few words of your own in support, and send an e-mail to CARB. I've just done that myself, and I urge everyone who visits this site to do the same.

Maybe it is just the anti-authoritarian part of me speaking, but I was tickled by the statements that implied CARB's incompetence (faulty fact-finding) and irrelevance (market forces doing in short order what CARB had tried to do for years). While both conclusions seem very true, I doubt that the satraps at CARB will be as amused as I was.

Back in the early 1990s, there was a syndicated TV series called Time Trax, starring Dale Midkiff, as a "fugitive retrieval specialist" from the future, who chases time-traveling bad guys that have landed in our era. The writers peppered the scripts with numerous offhand political statements. Midkiff's character, for example, was a patriot for the old USA (which had morphed into something else by his time); he endured discrimination and bigotry as a member of a minority race ("blancos"); and one of the biggest, baddest state government agencies, whose policies would someday provoke the US Federal government into invading the breakaway republic of California, was CARB. Of course, the writers were assuming that CARB would prove itself both competent and relevant as the years went on. In that, I am glad to say that they seem to have erred. I, for one, hope that Time Trax was just a pleasant bit of sci-fi fluff, and not in any way an accurate prediction of the future potency of that agency. :-)

Peter J Hedge

6:42pm | aug 13, 2008

Re: ZEV Programme

As a Canadina I'm not sure if my two-penneth worth of prose is worth much or will do any good . . . but I sent an e-mail off anyway to the ARB

CARB and its officers are an extreme embarrassment. They should be ashamed of collecting a paycheck and bilking the taxpayer. Since CARB has proven itself to be impotent, its funding should be discontinued. This is one place the government can save money and save face by disassociating itself from CARB.

David Navas

6:55am | aug 14, 2008

Having been through the CARB dance before, I have come to the conclusion that they are neither interested in your feedback, nor capable of understanding it. If you want to see more electric cars on the road, build them. At that point, who cares what the gov't does? It can't even be considered sport to demonstrate their own stupidity to them, as the line to do so goes out of the building and around the parking lot. Several times.

Leave the morons at the state government to steep in their own safe world of sure campaign contributions, and pray they show you a similar courtesy.

jmho,
-Dave

Nubo

9:48am | aug 14, 2008

No love for CARB here. When I moved to California, I had to pay a $300 "smog abatement fee" because my car didn't have a "California Sticker". No matter that this model was mechanically identical in all 50 states and passed the emmissions test with flying colors. After forking over the cash for the privilege of moving across the border, plus the outrageous licensing fee, I got to follow an "historic vehicle" on the way home, in a cloud of blue smoke. This vehicle, of course, was exempt from any smog requirements at all.

What Tesla is doing is changing the game with or without CARB. While CARB rules, credits, etc, may be part of the business model, realistically the actual leap from the old tech to new will happen without or despite CARB. Governments role, in my opinion, is far more suited to nurturing, or even building, the infrastructure that will make electric cars a worthwhile reality. Instead of simply mandating their existence. This means abundant clean electricity, primarily, improvements to the grid, and eventually the beginnings of a recharge infrastructure; though the latter is not necessary for the near term.

Jim Mapes

12:35pm | aug 14, 2008

Here’s the thing:

You do realize that CARB and most government programs of that ilk are a waste of taxpayer’s dollars, staffed by political appointees/cronies of influential people/money. CARB is also mostly irrelevant. You guys rail about what they should do, and obviously they are paying bare lip service to the aggressive goals they were formed to achieve. The best thing to happen would be the disbandment of the Board and diversion of those funds to more useful functions.

What you are doing at Tesla Motors will result in the achievement of like goals in a more positive and concrete fashion than what any government mandate will do. Forcing manufacturers to offer ZEVs that very few of us want to buy (low powered, short ranged wheeled shoe boxes) would produce the weak results such a mandate deserves from private enterprise and a free market. When you take the technology and offer parallel or improved performance over gas burning vehicles in the same performance range at a comparable price, market principles take over.

Does anyone that actually reads these forums not believe that had GM offered the EV1 for sale and not lease, at an extrapolated price based on mass production of the vehicle – that they would not have been able to keep up with demand even in the 90s? I lived there in CA at the time, why would I lease a car for $450 when I would buy a similar sized and performance vehicle for ¼ of that cost? Bearing in mind here that for the majority of consumers saving the environment is not factor #1 in the choice – its budget – it’s the economy stupid! On that factor alone they prevented most of us from even considering the EV1, though yes I did at the time and both the fact it was a lease only and the high cost of the lease for the vehicle class were the deciding factors in my choice to go with a different vehicle. If I lease a vehicle for 5 years, at the end I have to pay a residual of thousands of dollars to keep the car; if I buy it at the end of 5 years I have equity of several thousand dollars. Leasing vs buying leaves you upside down by a major portion of the price of the product – it is only a viable alternative as a write off for business – a consumer should NEVER lease a vehicle etc unless they are the type to do so under short term turnover to a different lease. Then they are just renting a ride. I stopped throwing my money away though, that is for the rich &/or stupid.

The real “next step” that needs to happen for Tesla & other companies that are looking to make desirable EVs is devising the means for fast recharging, allowing the vehicles to travel cross-country in the same manner as a gas car. This likely means very close work with electric utilities to design the system and stations to provide a 80-90% state of charge in a 5 minute time frame, thus making the dynamics of the trip virtually the same as we are all used to. Remove this hurdle and there remains no reasonable objection to losing the ICE power plant in favor of electric for almost any consumer. Address this problem and expand your market potential broad spectrum.

Working on changing CARBs mindset is really going to net what in terms of market share? Nothing I suspect; its really about selling ZEV credits to others like GM that can’t meet CARBs demands. I truly hope this is not the actual bottom line of Tesla’s business plan. If you were making Reva’s or Th!nk’s then I could see it, because gas would go a whole lot higher before I could bring myself to drive something like those.

This country is based on a free market. Make stylish, powerful, reliable & affordable vehicles and you will find a market for as many as you can produce for a very long time. The Roadster is all of that save affordable, but that is a relative valuation because the vehicles in its class are also in the same price range. Model S as a 5-passenger sports sedan should compete and beat directly the vehicles in its class – Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro etc – at a price that is within the reach of purchasers of those same vehicles. Do this and you win.

On another vein, an argument that could, should and probably is made in at least some circles has to do with the efficiency factor for electric vs any other means of motive power for vehicles. This has to do with energy production and yield from the quantity of fuel you buy. This is an issue that should be hammered home to consumers about how they are getting ripped off for their energy dollar when they buy gasoline, or any other fuel, and use it to produce power.

A good analogy is if you bought a ton of coal to heat & light your home, vs buying the power that a ton of coal produces from the electric utility company in your area. They have the equipment to extract much more of the energy from the fuel than you can possibly have on your stove or lantern. You will enjoy many more days of heat and light provided by electricity than trying to do it yourself with the raw fuel. You will also have to do far less work, and not have to deal with the mess, stink and hazards associated with coal storage and combustion. I work in a coal fired generating station, I assure you there are many reasons that coal heating is largely gone from housing, and proportionately taken over by electric heating in its stead.

The same loss of efficiency exists when you buy a gallon of gas and burn it in your car – you waste most of the energy as heat. The utility captures that heat, and uses steam produced to capture that energy. If you have an electric car, those same gallons of gas provides double or treble the energy for you if you buy the resultant energy from a utility equipped to efficiently convert it.

Now I am certain everyone reading is aware of this. But what I am not seeing is this case being made pointedly and publicly. Where is the ad showing the masked bandit of heat loss robbing the consumer who drives a gas ICE vehicle of his money/energy. This is public education that needs to be done, for even though it is slowly dawning on the public at large, the Bubba’s of the world will need a more direct and simpler explanation. When Tesla gets around to making an advertisement, I hope one of the scenes is a Roadster driving by a gas station with a good line at the pumps, with the driver thumbing their nose (or waving if it needs to be more politically correct). I in fact prefer the Israeli commercial of recent controversy, but that might not go over so well with some people.

Hunter

9:10am | aug 15, 2008

I would have focused on the final point; the expiration of ZEV credits. The others we already know are Quixotic. Like it or not, the CARB simply has no leverage anymore; everyone knows now that their threat (that they would actually disallow noncomplying majors from selling cars in CA) is totally empty. So they have to appease the majors, or else get caught in their lie when the majors don't comply.

James Anderson Merritt

4:08pm | aug 15, 2008

# JIm Mapes wrote,
# The real “next step” that needs to happen for Tesla & other companies that are looking to make
# desirable EVs is devising the means for fast recharging, allowing the vehicles to travel
# cross-country in the same manner as a gas car. This likely means very close work with
# electric utilities to design the system and stations to provide a 80-90% state of charge in a 5 minute
# time frame, thus making the dynamics of the trip virtually the same as we are all used to.

This requires improvement in battery technology as well as electrical infrastructure, both of which are likely to be problematic, expensive, and implementable only over the long term. We've discussed the issue many times in these fora over the past several years. An alternative approach is to standardize on interchangeable battery modules, and design vehicles around them. "Range extension stations" around the country could then just operate as do the thousands of outlets where you can exchange an empty standard propane tank for a fully-filled one. Some details would need to be worked out about the actual exchange protocol (for example, what happens when someone wishes to exchange a fading, old module for a brand new one, or vice versa), but the issues to be addressed are tractable. At some time in the future, when battery capacity obviates the need for quick-charging the standard module design would still promote efficient inexpensive maintenance, repair, and upgrade, as well as the repurposing of old auto batteries for such things as grid balancing, home power, etc.

jeffhre

10:59pm | aug 15, 2008

This would be a great time to wean ourselves off of the idea of taking trips thousands of miles long in our cars; and instead driving our electric cars to a station (Transit center) and hopping onto vastly more efficient trains etc. Just think of having the infrastructure to have a choice between a relaxed scenic train-ride or jumping onto a high speed a rail line. In whatever area you want to tour in greater detail, jump into a reserved Tesla Roadster and hit the open road. Then return to a train station to continue on your long distance rail trip. This would be phenomenally relaxing and efficient. This is the time to pioneer the effort, while the future of U.S. transport is in flux.

I understand Teslas' desire to see CARB take an active lead in growing the ZEV market but in reality our open market economy has much more effect as proven recently by the price of gas. Are the sale of ZEV credits a big factor in Tesla generating funding to grow? If not let CARB die a slow death!
Philip

ren

11:03am | aug 18, 2008

# Philip Buck wrote on August 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
# I understand Teslas’ desire to see CARB take an active lead in growing the ZEV market but in reality our open market economy has much # more effect as proven recently by the price of gas. Are the sale of ZEV credits a big factor in Tesla generating funding to grow? If not let CARB # die a slow death!

While so many of us are quick to vent our frustration with the lethargy and impotence of CARB here on this forum. A courteous comment to CARB, while certainly not cathartic, would actually be more productive. Let's not forget that this call for comments is an effort to implore them to reduce the "Anti free market" language that has been inserted at the behest of the established behemoth auto manufacturers. Who by the way, have been losing money hand over fist for many years now. In a true "open market economy" they would not exist. So even if a level playing field is too much to ask, perhaps it could just be a bit less tilted in the crybaby loser bully direction. If only we make our opinion be known in a manner that will be heard.

Chris

11:17am | aug 18, 2008

Jeffhre - I agree that long car trips are wasteful. However North American society has allowed most of the rail to be ripped up. Replacing it will be expensive and will tend to face opposition in every neighbourhood where we need to restore service. What you suggest might work in Europe where they still have an extensive rail network. It won't fly here though unless you can show the railways how to make money off passenger service again. If gas hits $3/L you might see significant numbers of Canadians get on board with rebuilding the rail network. In the US the physicological barrier for doing that might be as high as $10/gallon. However given the current price dip in gas and diesel prices has some of my co-workers reconsidering the possibility of buying a small, fuel-efficient car in favour of a cross-over or SUV hybrid. This tells me they haven't grasped the concept of total cost of ownership for their vehicles. It also tells me that they won't accept the 'loss of freedom' that would come with your idea (they would have to adapt to a train schedule instead of the car which can adapt to their schedule).

Trains may be the most fuel-efficient means of moving large numbers of objects/people. I too would love to see us go back to using them in North America, but right now the economics and attitude may make it less likely to happen in the next couple decades than a base on the moon. Hmmm, I wonder how effective the ESS would be in a locomotive...

Dan

12:23pm | aug 18, 2008

TOO LATE !

" ... Please note: This ARB Board Item is no longer Available for Public Comment. Your comment will NOT be submitted to the Board."

Very interesting letter :) I sincerely hope you will win in this great CARB cause :)

Dirk

7:24pm | aug 20, 2008

Mr. President,

Please provide us an update on the progress of your next vehichle. It has been a while and no information has leaked out so why wait?
Can you decribe what besides the styling will be different from the roadster? Any little thing to give us fools some hope would be very much appreciated.

You can't mandate supply and demand. The bootstrap approach Tesla is taking is the way to go. The biggest steps anyone can take to curb CA air quality is A. ride mass transit. B. ride a bike C. move closer to work and walk D. stop eating animal products E. switch to green power with your utility company F. car pool

Aside from C&E. most of these will probably save you $. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a Tesla, if there wasn't a wait list and I could hook it up at the apartment I RENT I'd be all over. If Tesla was publicly traded I'd buy some stock, too. However, I'm more interested in less environmentally taxing methods of storing energy, such as compressed air (do those cars even work?)

I moved to Santa Monica in April and when my lease is up I'm out of here. The air & water are toxic. What good is nice weather when you can't breath the air?

Jim Mapes

6:51pm | aug 22, 2008

James Anderson Merritt wrote on August 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
[i]This requires improvement in battery technology as well as electrical infrastructure, both of which are likely to be problematic, expensive, and implementable only over the long term. We’ve discussed the issue many times in these fora over the past several years. An alternative approach is to standardize on interchangeable battery modules, and design vehicles around them. “Range extension stations” around the country could then just operate as do the thousands of outlets where you can exchange an empty standard propane tank for a fully-filled one. Some details would need to be worked out about the actual exchange protocol (for example, what happens when someone wishes to exchange a fading, old module for a brand new one, or vice versa), but the issues to be addressed are tractable. At some time in the future, when battery capacity obviates the need for quick-charging the standard module design would still promote efficient inexpensive maintenance, repair, and upgrade, as well as the repurposing of old auto batteries for such things as grid balancing, home power, etc. [/i]

Perhaps battery technology isn't up this yet, but I'd have to see that to be convinced. If a car can get 200+ miles on a charge, charging stations every 50 miles over the interstate system would get an EV between major cities. The issue likely is more the charging rate, how fast can the battery pack take on a charge to run another 200 miles. That is what needs to be worked on. Electrical infrastructure frankly can handle it. I work for an electric utility. Dropping an industrial scale line is a matter of running some wire & poles from the nearest sub-station, if the service isn't already running by the site to begin with. Once a plan to put one in somewhere was implemented this would take a few weeks or months to accomplish like any other new construction. It would not place a huge burden on the grid - if you charge on the road, you would pay a premium for the Kw used, probably by a factor multiple to pay for the power lines, station and skilled electrician that would be required to hook up something like 4160volt service to your car. Given it will take several years to see a large rise in the number of EVs using any such installations, the load demand would be negligible compared to even a wharehouse built in the same district that had lighting over its ie 200,000 sqft floor. Given the relative cost to charge at home vs at a station like that, most people would avoid charging there except for long trips. Early stations like that would very likely have to be subsidizeddue to low usage, which my point was the money used to fund CARB would be better spent doing just that.

Scott

9:22pm | aug 22, 2008

A little off topic for the post but is the Tesla factory going to be green? If it weren't it would kind of defeat the purpose of having an all electic car/

I would have focused on the final point; the expiration of ZEV credits. The others we already know are Quixotic. Like it or not, the CARB simply has no leverage anymore; everyone knows now that their threat (that they would actually disallow noncomplying majors from selling cars in CA) is totally empty. So they have to appease the majors, or else get caught in their lie when the majors don’t comply.

chris granillo

11:44pm | aug 24, 2008

Revolutionary concepts need revolutionary minds and action. PLEASE make your products available to not only the prestigeous but also to the common. Act accordingly.

Brian H

4:14am | aug 25, 2008

Compressed air cars have lotsa issues. Compressing air strongly heats it; decompressing it produces sudden deep chilling. Thermodynamics will not be mocked!

As far as bike riding goes, I'd like to get a bio-engineering study done of how much extra food a cyclist consumes (and how much energy it take to grow it and provide and prepare it for him), and how much extra CO2 he exhales in biking back and forth to work, and how much body heat gets dumped into the air, vs. the energy cost of riding high-efficiency transit. Maybe the new slogan will be: "Park your bike! Ride the bus!" ;)

Mark W.

6:03pm | aug 26, 2008

I am interested in hearing Tesla's reaction to Wired magazine's article on electric cars, about Shai Agassi's concept for supporting infrastructure. It sounds like Israel has signed on and that it could make electric vehicles more practical to own. Looks to me to be the future of electric vehicles

Chris

7:08pm | aug 27, 2008

Thoughts about energy and hurricanes (specifically, the current Hurricane Gustav) - something does not quite seem right when a single natural disaster has the capability to wipe out a good 25% of our oil refining capacity....

NASA would call that a "single point of failure." NASA *hates* those.

Tossing all our eggs into one oil basket - and using that basket to produce/power everything from Hasbro toys to our cars - seems terrifically unwise, particularly if a single natural disaster or terrorist attack has the power to bring our nation to a standstill. To be sure, electrical production is still open to critical failures, and our electrical grid certainly leaves something to be desired. However, the very nature of electricity spreads out the power-plants, so a disaster at one is unlikely to bring down the entire grid. Furthermore, electricity can be generated by just about anything (solar, wind, coal, nuclear, hydro, etc) just about anywhere. So, for example, if people had solar panels boosted by a wind turbine, they could still function (if, perhaps, not optimally) should the local power plant go down. A SPOF system is broken apart into a web of redundant systems.

As far as bike riding goes, I’d like to get a bio-engineering study done of how much extra food a cyclist consumes (and how much energy it take to grow it and provide and prepare it for him), and how much extra CO2 he exhales in biking back and forth to work, and how much body heat gets dumped into the air, vs. the energy cost of riding high-efficiency transit. Maybe the new slogan will be: “Park your bike! Ride the bus!”

Jim Mapes

6:14pm | sep 2, 2008

Chris,

Someone posted a very excellent article on efficiency & energy here sometime about 2 years ago. Part of the article was about how the more efficient we make our devices, the more energy we use (because we then buy more devices). Another part related how electricity was essentially "money" in an energy economy. As you note, it can be derived from any source, and then used to perform just about any work. It is less efficient in most circumstances to take the fuel and use it at site where work is to be performed because in the case of major sources (coal, nuclear, gas) to extract the most potential out of the source requires a large facility with many subsystems that a single use consumer can't afford. IE, try lighting your house with coal, it would never be cost effective, the housecleaning efforts alone would begate any savings that would be had, except uyou wouldn't save anything. You wouidl perhaps at best get half the energy from the coal as light that you would if you bought the energy off the grid from that same volume of coal converted to electricity at a fully provisioned power plant. The amount of preheat, post capture & other systems designed to increase efficiency just aren't practical in any small scale unit.

That same dynamic comes into play with the EV vs a gas powered ICE vehicle. If you took that gas and converted it to electricity in a Combined Cycle Turbine generator and charged an EV off it you would get something like 2-2.5 times farther down the road than the ICE car converting that gas to kinetic motion in its motor. The amount of heat waste in any combustion engine is a major portion of the energy potential of the fuel. The CCT generator captures that heat in its steam cycle and therefore extracts energy from that waste that goes out the tail pipe & radiator of the ICE vehicle. So the big arguement about EV's vs ICE driven vehicles is why are consumers allowing themselves to be ripped off for their energy dollar? They are sold a product (gas, diesel) that they can only get a minor portion of the value from. As prices rise this is a significant factor that should be evaluated in the media. Why would the consumer want to buy gas that they can only get 30% or so of the erengy value from when they can get 65-70% of it for the same usage by letting a proffessionaly energy conversion company (local utility) perform the conversion for them and ultimately pay far less for that energy once all is said and done?

Todd O.

9:07am | sep 3, 2008

Ze'ev,

Just make them and offer them for sale. NOW! Why would you want CARB to put pressure on your competition to compete with you? If you get that Model S on the market at a reasonable price you will take over! Just do it! For most of the public, Tesla Motors is just a website. Get some cars out there!

Timo

1:00pm | sep 3, 2008

Todd O;

Tesla *is* selling cars right now. Roadster. You can't "just make them". There is designing, crash testing, certificates etc. to do before you can get entirely new car into market. Tesla doesn't even have factory yet for the Whitestar. They will produce them no matter what CARB does, but it would be nice to have some brains in government, that is why pressure in CARB is in place.

Brian H

1:25pm | sep 6, 2008

I have no idea how I got to be 'sohbet' above; but that was my post about wasteful food-fueling of cyclists. ;)

bob

4:15pm | sep 7, 2008

Is tesla planning on implementing ultra thin/ flexible solar cells and or spray on solar technology to help recharge during longer road trips. I would jump to buy a tesla. Especially if Tesla can mass produce some vehicles at around $30-$50,000 per family car with this kind of technology could push tesla to the #1 automaker in the US. I would buy one already if it got more than 225 miles in a charge. How about a tarp that you can lay out and recharge it at a car stop or restraunt for a few hours?
What are teslas plans regarding this kind of technology? I would really like to know.

Roy

4:40pm | sep 7, 2008

We are dying for a new blog about the WhiteStar, especially after Elon's teaser about WhiteStar improvements "The Roadster's got really... Version 1 history of the technology; Version 2 is a whole step above that in many different ways, and then the rest of the powertrain, motor, transmission, power electronics – that's going to be much more tightly integrated package – much more cost-efficient."

Roy

4:42pm | sep 7, 2008

Oh, I forgot to say that Elon is talking about the battery pack.

Timo

12:58pm | sep 8, 2008

Roy; What? Where? Have I missed something? What teaser?

TomE

10:27pm | sep 8, 2008

Brian H wrote on August 25th, 2008 at 4:14 am

"As far as bike riding goes, I’d like to get a bio-engineering study done of how much extra food a cyclist consumes (and how much energy it take to grow it and provide and prepare it for him), and how much extra CO2 he exhales in biking back and forth to work, and how much body heat gets dumped into the air, vs. the energy cost of riding high-efficiency transit."

There is this too:
"So, wrote the spec for the sedan which is code-named WhiteStar and we're going a pure EV approach by the way"

So Whitestar will not be a hybrid.

and this:
"My motivation with Tesla and with SolarCity is just, I think, time is running out. We've got to do something. If things are just left on their own devices, it might be too late. So, I don't really care about making... if this was just a sports car company, it would not interest me at all."

Which gives him a lot of points from me. Big plus to Elon. :-)

david moxness

5:40pm | sep 16, 2008

OK OK, I was a little emotional on the issue of billions in guaranteed loans for the auto industry. We want alternative fueled vehicles to make it to the showrooms in large numbers in the next few years. The money to make that happen will come out of our pockets one way or the other so a little pain now will payoff in the long term. A little of that money I would hope should be coming Tesla's way. I see big things coming for Tesla as this shakeup of the industry plays out. Having a car on the road now is going to pay off big one way or the other. Meanwhile the consumers will be the big winners in two to three years when there will be several options for (cleaner) more efficient vehicles. Tesla has helped steer the industry in the right direction and there is no turning back now.

CARB is a complete joke they need to disband, they no longer work for the people, they work for the corporations who want to slow down development so that those corporations can expends the life of their companies with out dated technology. What I cannot believe is that Bush did not want states to exceed the standards that were set over the years by state regulators, so that those corporations could maintain a stranglehold on our future so that they could survive long past their time!

Purnell

2:35am | mrt 20, 2009

CARB should have a least some people who are under thirty years old on it, who eye have not been clouded by the old days, and ways of doing things! CARB has to learn that all things change!

As far as bike riding goes, I’d like to get a bio-engineering study done of how much extra food a cyclist consumes (and how much energy it take to grow it and provide and prepare it for him), and how much extra CO2 he exhales in biking back and forth to work, and how much body heat gets dumped into the air, vs. the energy cost of riding high-efficiency transit. Maybe the new slogan will be: “Park your bike! Ride the bus!”

That same dynamic comes into play with the EV vs a gas powered ICE vehicle. If you took that gas and converted it to electricity in a Combined Cycle Turbine generator and charged an EV off it you would get something like 2-2.5 times farther down the road than the ICE car converting that gas to kinetic motion in its motor. The amount of heat waste in any combustion engine is a major portion of the energy potential of the fuel. The CCT generator captures that heat in its steam cycle and therefore extracts energy from that waste that goes out the tail pipe & radiator of the ICE vehicle. So the big arguement about EV’s vs ICE driven vehicles is why are consumers allowing themselves to be ripped off for their energy dollar? They are sold a product (gas, diesel) that they can only get a minor portion of the value from. As prices rise this is a significant factor that should be evaluated in the media. Why would the consumer want to buy gas that they can only get 30% or so of the erengy value from when they can get 65-70% of it for the same usage by letting a proffessionaly energy conversion company (local utility) perform the conversion for them and ultimately pay far less for that energy once all is said and done...

This country is based on a free market. Make stylish, powerful, reliable & affordable vehicles and you will find a market for as many as you can produce for a very long time. The Roadster is all of that save affordable, but that is a relative valuation because the vehicles in its class are also in the same price range. Model S as a 5-passenger sports sedan should compete and beat directly the vehicles in its class – Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro etc – at a price that is within the reach of purchasers of those same vehicles. Do this and you win.

OK OK, I was a little emotional on the issue of billions in guaranteed loans for the auto industry. We want alternative fueled vehicles to make it to the showrooms in large numbers in the next few years. The money to make that happen will come out of our pockets one way or the other so a little pain now will payoff in the long term. A little of that money I would hope should be coming Tesla’s way. I see big things coming for Tesla as this shakeup of the industry plays out. Having a car on the road now is going to pay off big one way or the other. Meanwhile the consumers will be the big winners in two to three years when there will be several options for (cleaner) more efficient vehicles. Tesla has helped steer the industry in the right direction and there is no turning back now.

How much extra CO2 he exhales in biking back and forth to work, and how much body heat gets dumped into the air, vs. the energy cost of riding high-efficiency transitHaving a car on the road now is going to pay off big one way or the other.

Jeri Kanawyer

10:52am | nov 29, 2009

I have a great hope for the dream of electric vehicles becoming a reality for our country. We are all waiting. I would like to encourage you with my prayers that you and your team members are given the strength to use your gifts to the best of your abilities and the grace to continue this race in a troubled world that desperately needs some positive, real change. I would ask Him to care for your families at this Thanksgiving time and I pray for the burden of cost to be lifted and the negative powers to be thrown aside to allow you the transforming power above all powers to make this a reality. I thank God for you all and I Thank Him for His Answer. In Jesus my Saviour's name, amen. Carpe Diem.

As far as bike riding goes, I’d like to get a bio-engineering study done of how much extra food a cyclist consumes (and how much energy it take to grow it and provide and prepare it for him), and how much extra CO2 he exhales in biking back and forth to work, and how much body heat gets dumped into the air, vs. the energy cost of riding high-efficiency transit. Maybe the new slogan will be: “Park your bike! Ride the bus!”

This country is based on a free market. Make stylish, powerful, reliable & affordable vehicles and you will find a market for as many as you can produce for a very long time. The Roadster is all of that save affordable, but that is a relative valuation because the vehicles in its class are also in the same price range. Model S as a 5-passenger sports sedan should compete and beat directly the vehicles in its class – Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro etc – at a price that is within the reach of purchasers of those same vehicles. Do this and you win.

evdenevesec

6:50am | aug 12, 2010

Actually, we do use lazy binding in the production scenegraph. We also do not recompute bounds or transforms on every change. There is certainly more to tighten up

evdenevesec

6:51am | aug 12, 2010

This site and the admin most heartfelt thanks to all the friends say. This information is very wonderful and enlightening. more beautiful than beautiful to publish information. I thank you for comments and respect to all my friends to provide